Evaluation of the high definition field of view option of a large-bore computed tomography scanner for radiation therapy simulation

Background and purpose

Computed tomography (CT) scanning is the basis for radiation treatment planning, but the 50-cm standard scanning field of view (sFOV) may be too small for imaging larger patients. We evaluated the 65-cm high-definition (HD) FOV of a large-bore CT scanner for CT number accuracy, geometric distortion, image quality degradation, and dosimetric accuracy of photon treatment plans.

Materials and methods

CT number accuracy was tested by placing two 16-cm acrylic phantoms on either side of a 40-cm phantom to simulate a large patient extending beyond the 50-cm-diameter standard scanning FOV. Dosimetric accuracy was tested using anthropomorphic pelvis and thorax phantoms, with additional acrylic body parts on either side of the phantoms. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy beams (a 15-MV and a 6-MV) were used to cover the planning target volumes. Two-dimensional dose distributions were evaluated with GAFChromic film and point dose accuracy was checked with multiple thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) capsules placed in the phantoms. Image quality was tested by placing an American College of Radiology accreditation phantom inside the 40-cm phantom.

Results

The HD FOV showed substantial changes in CT numbers, with differences of 314 HU–725 HU at different density levels. The volume of the body parts extending into the HD FOV was distorted. However, TLD-reported doses for all PTVs agreed within ±3%. Dose agreement in organs at risk were within the passing criteria, and the gamma index pass rate was >97%. Image quality was degraded.

Conclusions

The HD FOV option is adequate for RT simulation and met accreditation standards, although care should be taken during contouring because of reduced image quality.

Evaluation of the accuracy of deformable image registration on MRI with a physical phantom

Background and purpose

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has gained popularity in radiation therapy simulation because it provides superior soft tissue contrast, which facilitates more accurate target delineation compared with computed tomography (CT) and does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation. However, image registration errors in commercial software have not been widely reported. Here we evaluated the accuracy of deformable image registration (DIR) by using a physical phantom for MRI.

Methods and materials

We used the “Wuphantom” for end‐to‐end testing of DIR accuracy for MRI. This acrylic phantom is filled with water and includes several fillable inserts to simulate various tissue shapes and properties. Deformations and changes in anatomic locations are simulated by changing the rotations of the phantom and inserts. We used Varian Velocity DIR software (v4.0) and CT (head and neck protocol) and MR (T1‐ and T2‐weighted head protocol) images to test DIR accuracy between image modalities (MRI vs CT) and within the same image modality (MRI vs MRI) in 11 rotation deformation scenarios. Large inserts filled with Mobil DTE oil were used to simulate fatty tissue, and small inserts filled with agarose gel were used to simulate tissues slightly denser than water (e.g., prostate). Contours of all inserts were generated before DIR to provide a baseline for contour size and shape. DIR was done with the MR Correctable Deformable DIR method, and all deformed contours were compared with the original contours. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean distance to agreement (MDA) were used to quantitatively validate DIR accuracy. We also used large and small regions of interest (ROIs) during between‐modality DIR tests to simulate validation of DIR accuracy for organs at risk (OARs) and propagation of individual clinical target volume (CTV) contours.

Results

No significant differences in DIR accuracy were found for T1:T1 and T2:T2 comparisons (P > 0.05). DIR was less accurate for between‐modality comparisons than for same‐modality comparisons, and was less accurate for T1 vs CT than for T2 vs CT (P < 0.001). For between‐modality comparisons, use of a small ROI improved DIR accuracy for both T1 and T2 images.

Conclusion

The simple design of the Wuphantom allows seamless testing of DIR; here we validated the accuracy of MRI DIR in end‐to‐end testing. T2 images had superior DIR accuracy compared with T1 images. Use of small ROIs improves DIR accuracy for target contour propagation.

Quantifying the accuracy of deformable image registration for cone-beam computed tomography with a physical phantom

PURPOSE

Kilo-voltage cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is widely used for patient alignment, contour propagation, and adaptive treatment planning in radiation therapy. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of deformable image registration (DIR) for CBCT under various imaging protocols with different noise and patient dose levels.

METHODS

A physical phantom previously developed to facilitate end-to-end testing of the DIR accuracy was used with Varian Velocity v4.0 software to evaluate the performance of image registration from CT to CT, CBCT to CT, and CBCT to CBCT. The phantom is acrylic and includes several inserts that simulate different tissue shapes and properties. Deformations and anatomic changes were simulated by changing the rotations of both the phantom and the inserts. CT images (from a head and neck protocol) and CBCT images (from pelvis, head and "Image Gently" protocols) were obtained with different image noise and dose levels. Large inserts were filled with Mobil DTE oil to simulate soft tissue, and small inserts were filled with bone materials. All inserts were contoured before the DIR process to provide a ground truth contour size and shape for comparison. After the DIR process, all deformed contours were compared with the originals using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean distance to agreement (MDA). Both large and small volume of interests (VOIs) for DIR volume selection were tested by simulating a DIR process that included whole patient image volume and clinical target volumes (CTV) only (for CTVs propagation).

RESULTS

For cross-modality DIR registration (CT to CBCT), the DSC were >0.8 and the MDA were <3 mm for CBCT pelvis, and CBCT head protocols. For CBCT to CBCT and CT to CT, the DIR accuracy was improved relative to the cross-modality tests. For smaller VOIs, the DSC were >0.8 and MDA <2 mm for all modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of DIR depends on the quality of the CBCT image at different dose and noise levels.